datalens_sparkclusters_deleteDeletes a Spark cluster by ID, returning an operation that lakehouseoperations_get can read to track its status.
Delete a Spark cluster and return the operation; lakehouseoperations_get reads it.
Experimental API, not measured.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Spark cluster id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.122.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the call returns an asynchronous operation, that operation is read via lakehouseoperations_get, and the API is experimental and not measured.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and result. Every clause earns its place: operation return, follow-up tool, and experimental status.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the async return and experimental state, though it omits any permission or irreversibility details that might matter for a delete operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single 'id' parameter clearly documented as 'Spark cluster id.' The description adds no extra syntax, format, or constraints beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a Spark cluster'. The name and description together make the action unambiguous against all sibling tools, including the Spark cluster stop/start variants.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. It mentions a follow-up tool (lakehouseoperations_get) but does not help the agent decide between deleting, stopping, or leaving the cluster running.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.